I would like to see more functionality with the external software, SnapCenter. There should also be more integration with the flash side of things. But overall, it's been pretty good.
All-Flash Storage Arrays Integration Reviews
Showing reviews of the top ranking products in All-Flash Storage Arrays, containing the term Integration
NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS): Integration
I did the deployment, integration, and migration. We've done two petabytes in less than six months, and we're almost done.
The experience was great when it comes to our virtual environment. It was a very simple process. We use vMotion and it moves everything across. It is a little more painful when it comes to standalone systems and Oracle Databases, but the integrated migration product (Foreign LUN migration) that they have, once configured properly, works well.
NetApp AFF has improved our organization through the use of clusters. Previously we had migrated from Dell EMC and we had a lot of difficulties moving data around. Now, if we need to move it to any slower storage, we can move it with just a vault move within the cluster. Even moving data between clusters is extremely simple using SnapMirror. The mobility options for data in All Flash FAS have been awesome.
AFF has given us the ability to explore different technology initiatives because of the flexibility that it has, being able to fit it in like a puzzle piece to different products. For example, any other solutions that we've looked at, a lot of times those vendors have integration directly into NetApp, which we haven't found with other storage providers and so it's extremely helpful to have that tie-in.
This solution has also helped us to improve performance. We have hybrid arrays as well so that we can have things that are on slower storage. For the times that we need extremely fast storage, we can put it on AFF and we can use V-vaults if we need to to have different tiers and automatically put things where they need to be. It's really helped us to nail down performance problems when we need it to put them in places to fix them by just having the extreme performance.
Total cost to ownership has definitely dropped because with deduplication compression and compaction always on, we're able to fit a whole lot more in a smaller amount of space and still provide more performance than we had before. Our total cost per gigabyte ends up being less by going to All Flash.
It has a high quality of integration that is way beyond the competition.
We didn't have any other vendors on the list, although we had one team that tried to push HP on to us and we said no. HP was really the only other possible alternative that we had. We had tossed around a couple of other vendors, but we never really gave them any serious thought. We already knew NetApp, so it made more sense because they could integrate better and that was the main thing we were looking at. The level of integration. Since we had a NetApp that we've had for many years, it just made sense to stick with what we had, but a newer and faster version.
The cost of this solution should be reduced.
SnapCenter is the weak point of this solution. It would be amazing from a licensing standpoint if they got rid of SnapCenter completely and offered Veeam as an integration.
One of the best things about the AFF products is its integration with NetApp StorageGRID, which can give you the ability of tiering to the cloud or StorageGRID. Whether it is on-prem or off-prem, tiering is the industry trend right now. One of the ways that these products help us is by using the new ONTAP version as well. They identify the cold data sitting on our main storage arrays, consuming the very expensive media and moving that to the cheaper storage tiers, whether it's on-prem, StorageGRID, off-prem on a public cloud, or a private cloud. With this integration as part of the Data Fabric, we have been able to lower some costs of storing data on-prem.
But I find some issues with other administrators on my team when it comes to management of the data because they have to either learn a CLI, which some of them really don't like to do — to really get into managing how volumes should be moved or to edit permissions and stuff like that. Or they go into a user interface, which is fine, it's web-based, but it's not the most intuitive interface as far as finding the things you need to do, especially when they get complicated. Some things just hide in there and you have to click a few levels deep before you can actually do what you need to do.
I think they're working on improving that with like the latest versions of ONTAP. So we're kind of excited to see where that's going to go. But we haven't really tried that out yet to see.
One of the areas that the product can improve is definitely in the user interface. We don't use it for SAN, but we've looked at using it for SAN and the SAN workflows are really problematic for my admins, and they just don't like doing SAN provisioning on that app. That really needs to change if we're going to adopt it and actually consider it to be a strong competitor versus some of the other options out there.
As far as other areas, they're doing really great in the API realm. They're doing really great in the availability realm. They just announced the all-SAN product, so maybe we'll look at that for SAN.
But a lot of the improvements that I'd like to see around AFF go with the ancillary support side of things, like the support website. They're in the middle of rolling this out right now, so it's hard to criticize because next month they're going to have new stuff for me to look at. But tracking bugs on there and staying in touch with support and those sorts of things need a little bit of cleanup and improvement. Getting to your downloads and your support articles, that's always a challenge with any vendor.
I would like to see ONTAP improve their interfaces; like I said, the web one, but also the CLI. That could be a much more powerful interface for users to do a lot of scripting right in the CLI without needing third-party tools, without necessarily needing Ansible or any of those configuration management options. If they pumped up the CLI by default, users could see that NetApp has got us covered all right here in one interface.
That said, they're doing a lot of work on integrations with other tools like Ansible and I think that might be an okay way to go. We're just not really there yet.
We are in a crisis situation for everyone, for customers, for partners, for principals, manufacturers. We need a specific solution to move on in the world, to the new normal. So for solutions, CI (continuous integration) should be in the future of IT. CI is the future, it is easy to apply. You don't need to buy frequently - just buy once and scale out.
HCI is the key component in SolidFire. So I think for the customers who want their IT to have a continuous support and continuous business, then they should choose HCI solutions. I'm going to choose from NetApp or from any kind of hardware manufacturer, but the future I believe is CI. I believe that the best HCI is the NetApp HCI.
The difference between SolidFire and other storage is that it is a stand alone storage. No one has that software or that scalability. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SolidFire an eight.
The only thing is the initial cost because we have to convince the customer that he has to pay more. That's the only thing in this case. It's not an overall technical, scalability, or simplicity issue. The price factor brings it down to eight. Otherwise, if any partner is a gold partner and they get the good discount then I can easily give SolidFire a 10.
Tintri VMstore: Integration
Pure Storage FlashArray: Integration
We work with a lot of Oracle customers. We would like to see more development on their Copy Automation Tool (CAT) for Oracle, as well as better integration for our customers running Oracle VM.
Most of our customers who use Pure Storage have one of two scenarios:
- They have production data with high performance requirements running out of Pure Storage, and they want an efficient way to make a copy of that data onto some other storage for backup and DR purposes. For this scenario, we have integration with Pure Storage that allows us to very efficiently leverage their APIs to capture that data without the need to do things like repeated full copies of that data, leverages their snapshot APIs and differential APIs which tell us what's different from one snap to another to another.
- The customer has their data, maybe it is on Pure Storage or it's on some other array, then they want to use Actifio to get a copy onto a Pure Storage array.
For example, an Oracle user might need to make a copy of a large Oracle Database. They would want us to spin that database up in one or more lower, testing, or QA environments. These environments sometimes have high performance requirements, which could be met by placing a copy on Pure Storage on them.
Another example is a customer who has Oracle Exadata. Obviously, Oracle engineered systems have very high performance, and they don't want to have all of their test and dev copies in that Exadata platform, because of the cost of the platform. Therefore, Pure Storage, combined with Actifio, captures the data efficiently from the Exadata environment, then stores it on the Pure Storage disk. We then present that data to their test servers, which can be the Exadata Compute Servers or it can be any non-Exadata Linux-based Oracle servers. Then, they can have great performance because of the high speed delivery of data from Pure Storage using Actifio.
We used a reseller for the integration and we had a good experience with them.
vSphere integration and DevOps are our most valuable features.
Also, one of our customers used to have a rates run that ran for eight hours, and when we migrated them across to Pure that went down to under two hours.
I would like to see more cloud integration.
There are scenarios with very specific functionality around VMware integration particularly to do with the way we'd like to manage LUNs in VMware. The tools are pretty good but there's room for improvement there.
They need to find another way of doing data protection, RAID is not working very well. It takes performance away from the SSD.
I would like to have multi-cloud integration.
Latency needs a bit of work. It's pretty good but it needs to get below 300 microseconds. Then the data reduction would be excellent. On average I see twelve to one data reduction.
We use a reseller for the integration. We had a good experience with them.
If you have doubts, do a proof of concept. Pure Storage is very happy to provide you with storage ahead of time that you can test for a couple of months. This way, you can test the performance and bugs, which makes it easier to sell to your company.
Everything is embedded that is something managed from end-to-end by Pure Storage. This is something really easy for us. We don't have to work with integration and the different subcomponent of the storage that we would have to use if it was SSD.
We are at about 3.0 to 4.0 in terms of data reduction.
For the integration, we used a reseller. It was so easy to put in place and put it to work. They did a good job, but I think we could also do it.
Everything could be cheaper. Other areas where we would always like to see improvement with products like this are in compression and deduplication. Increasing the overall storage efficiency of the platform would be great.
One thing I'd like to see in a future release is integration between their main storage array and what they call their FlashBlade product; to be able to snapshot directly from the primary array into multiple different backup copies on FlashBlade. That would be an intriguing and interesting feature for us. Other than that, we've not had any big needs or demands.
The product has helped with speed. Previously, on disk, we would see latency issues with our SQL boxes. With Pure Storage, we don't see any latency or IOPS. It has been a very seamless integration.
If you are researching Pure Storage, make sure you are getting the right amount of space set up for what you are doing because the compression will affect how much you are getting overall. You might think you are only getting ten terabytes or fifteen terabytes, but it will be a lot less.
We use it for Hyper-V on my end and OpenStack on the production end. The integration for Hyper-V was very easy. There was pretty much no effort to do it.
The UI is pretty good. I don't use it as often as I probably should, but it usually just runs on its own.
Do a fair evaluation. Be objective, look at the different technologies, and use the technologies. See what they look like and what you will to have to deal with when you're using the products. It's easy to make a decision based on bullet points, but it's hard to make a decision on actual use of the actual technology.
We are a Chef shop, so we integrate it into Chef and VMware, vRA, and vRO. We also use all of the plug-ins. The integration is easy, simple, and seamless.
For most of the workloads, the solution’s inline deduplication and compression has performed fine. We had a few workloads that were already precompressed, so when you put those workloads on top of a storage system that does compression and dedupe, they don't compress again. So, they tend to eat up a little storage. Therefore, we specifically targeted some third-party applications, like IDERA SQL Safe, and tried to remove them from the environment. This way Pure Storage could then compress and dedupe those SQL backup files.
We are from Texas. Power is like ten cents a kilowatt. Texans apparently don't care that power is cheap. From a power requirement, it definitely has used less power, but we didn't use that as a metric to look at.
Biggest lesson learned: Why didn't I switch sooner?
We do have an issue with the vCenter integration. Pure Storage says it has a lot of free space, but vCenter says its completely full. This is because their dedupes are saved as space, but Vcenter still detects the disk as completely full. So, we do have an issue with that. Therefore, we would like to see improvements with the way it integrates with vCenter for picking up dedupe.
We did have one hiccup with the integration of vCenter. When we were installing Pure Storage, we were using vCenter 6.7, which defaults to the HTML5 Web Client. The current plugin for Pure Storage doesn't show up in that client at all. You have to go and use the legacy FlexFlash client to see the Pure Storage plugin in vCenter.
I know that Pure Storage is working on this. They already told us, "Hereon out, we will be developing and only deploying HTML5 plugins." However, it's currently only in beta testing right now from what they've said. Getting that plugin out would definitely help us, because we don't have flash, or use it very actively. If we had that plugin in sooner rather that later, it would be awesome.
Ensure you are looking at all aspects of what the device can do, what your company needs are, and try to see how Pure Storage can meet all of your company's current needs.
We have Pure Storage integrated with our vCenter. The integration was very simple and gives us a lot better insight into our virtual environment.
Pure Storage hasn't increased nor decrease our ability to manage storage, because the solution that we are moving from had a very easy to use interface too.
I don't really use the predictive performance analytics.
Biggest lesson learned: Longevity planning. Pure Storage, with their five-year upgrade for controllers, has helped me feel comfortable. Even as the company grows, I will still have a storage solution which will fit the environment.
Our primary use case for this solution is for tier 1 critical applications on-premises.
Our organization takes advantage of the VMware integration developed by Pure by integrating with vRealize.
We primarily use this solution for our SQL server in an on-premises deployment.
Having a dedicated array for our SQL server is very nice.
We are running VMware on Pure, and the main driver for that is because it is all-flash. Also, we wanted a dedicated solution for our SQL environment. Running on Pure has given us the ability to scale out our SQL environments. We tripled our environment in the past three years since implementing this solution, and we have not had any issues with the storage keeping up with the workloads.
We are making use of some of the VMware integrations that have been developed by Pure, but we are really waiting for the copy data management part.
The most valuable features of this solution are the speed, ease of use, administration, and the support model.
We have the VMware plugin for Pure storage. It's the plugin that allows us to create a data store. It's super simple but we use it. It's in vCenter. The integrations have helped by making it quicker to deploy data storage.
If we have a LUN that is ready to have a data store put on it, rather than us having to give access to certain people to create data stores, they can just do it directly from vCenter and they won't have to have access to the array. It makes it easier. It's a little faster.
The seamless integration into the public cloud has improved my organization. It also benefits my IT organization in many ways. We sell it, we use it, and it makes us faster.
The joint solution, VMware on Pure, has helped our organization. It's tested a lot of stuff and been put in production. It's also used for customers.
Our organization takes advantage of the VMware integrations developed by Pure, any APIs that are available to be using.
It offers seamless integrations and has made it easy for us to do. It's a simple product.
The initial setup was pretty straightforward and the integration was very easy to do. There were no hidden features and the GUI was very straightforward.
We use the solution on-premises and each array has a different use case. We have VDI, SQL, and General and the program provide better integration between the management and visibility of the solution. Our organization takes advantage of the VMware integration developed by Parrot and this gives us a lower level administrative access to more admins that don't have a background in storage.
It replaced an earlier tier. It replaced 3PAR Storage and gave us faster performance than the single databases.
VMware has benefited our IT organization because we're 100% VMware, everything is running on it.
We are running VMware on Pure. Our main driver was the performance for SQL servers. The joint solution has helped my organization in the way that the databases run faster.
My organization is taking advantage of the VM integration developed by Pure. We've deployed it. I think it gives the storage administrator some additional insights on metrics. I don't think we're using it to actually manage the data stores. He's getting more insights on metrics. Pure has a VAAI plugin that allows you to manage the data stores. We're not doing that, but I think it gives them heightened analytics in addition to SD-Pure1, a web interface. The integrations have helped in the way that they're another dashboard to have. Somebody could think that the databases are running slow and our database administrator can look at that tool and say, "No, it's unique to your SQL databases, it's not the other VMs on the data stores."
The most valuable feature is the speed.
We are taking advantage of the VMware integrations developed by Pure.
The integration was straightforward.
The solution has a lot of automation features that helped us to deploy the environment faster and to speed the of rate integration. Integration has helped because it helps us to understand the user's requirements. Deployment is done faster, and their applications are more secure. They are reassured that their data is saved in their environment.
It's fast because it's Flash storage so the IT team doesn't have to worry about it.
Besides virtualization and the benefits associated with that, we're a Workspace ONE customer, we're going to be starting that deployment Q4 of this year and we're looking forward to improving the patient experience with the doctors and the rest of the medical staff.
We are delivering a better experience for doctors and the other staff that deliver desirable outcomes. Again, it's easy on the IT staff. It's important to have infrastructure that you can rely on and not have to worry about failing.
We use SRM for VMware integration. The failovers with SRM are fantastic. It's fast and reliable. It just works, which is sometimes difficult to achieve.
We went from a four-cabinet VMAX array, where we paid $16,000 a month for a pod just for the array to sit in, and we took that down to seven U's of rack space in our existing co-lo facility. Not only did we save time, but we saved money, power, and air conditioning; all of that good stuff.
We also use VMware integrations developed by Pure, their plugins in our vCenter environment. They help by allowing our non-technical operations teams to deploy new data stores and resize data stores without me having to involve myself all the time to do those simple tasks.
HPE Nimble Storage: Integration
Our other systems administrator dealt with the integration of the product.
I think we used an integrator and a consultant. They were on campus for about five days, helping us integrate everything and move everything over.
I would like to have integration into cloud providers, apart from HPE.
The release cycle for the firmware upgrades could be improved. They are a bit long.
I want to see the full integration with OneView. I know they have started it, but I haven't had a chance to look at and evaluate it.
It would have been nice if the vendor had informed us of a known bug that occurred during the firmware upgrade because we could have prevented our only major failure.
I would like to see greater integration with Microsoft's Hyper-V platform. We are one hundred percent Hyper-V and no longer have use for the expensive VMware platform.
At my previous place of employment, I mentioned to my previous boss about this solution because it would have been good at my prior place of employment. They were in a similar situation. They had flash, spinning disks, etc. However, they used Pure Storage, Hitachi, and even some Dell EMC. When you have so many different arrays, or so many different companies, that you have to work with, it is very easy when there is a problem for a vendor to point their finger at another vendor. For a better chance of a successful integration, keep the products (and vendors) down to a minimum.
I don't really have to do a whole lot to it. Plug it in, and it does its job successfully.
The performance was already good. This isn't a reactionary, but being proactive. We are doing these measures to ensure that we don't have an issue.
The biggest lesson learned is to keep using Nimble.
I would like to see more integrations. They might already have them, but I want to integrate it with the different hardware we have.
The solution requires a higher availability.
The pricing of the solution isn't ideal. They should work to make it more affordable. It's very expensive.
I'd like to be able to configure the solution from vCenter, which isn't possible right now.
It would be great if the solution offered even more integrations and plugins.
HPE 3PAR StoreServ: Integration
We would like to see deduplication and hybrid in the next release of the solution.
The integration has room for improvement.
We would like to see a bigger integration with the Nimble Storage solution, so we can take our smaller regional companies and be able to send them into our bigger data centers and have everything work seamlessly.
The upgrade in the firmware and software need improvement.
The user interface is still a little kludgy.
The initial setup was complex. It's not a straightforward integration. There are a lot of parameters that you need to configure, and each parameter affects a lot of other things. Even though we used a partner for the implementation, after the installation in the data center we needed to rebuild everything and reconfigure everything several times. At the beginning, it wasn't good. Now we are stable so, except for the performance issue, everything is working as we expect it to work.
The solution should have better integration with legacy systems.
We would like memory-driven performance on the storage.
As it is, it does its job very well, so it's very difficult for me to say what we should be looking for in the next platform. I think cloud integration would probably be the biggest part because that's where everyone is going and the seamless integration between on-premise and cloud is an important part of any IT strategy today.
The most valuable features are:
- Peer Persistence, where storage failover is transparent to servers and there is no complex cluster-software integration.
- Thin Provisioning translates to reduced efforts in management on the server-side, where calculated growth of application data and LUNs can be provisioned on the first install.
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series: Integration
Compared to others, Hitachi products are more complex and not user-friendly. The interface should be simplified and made easier to use. For instance, the EMC Unity series is easier to manage.
In the next release of this solution, it should support NVMe.
We have read in the latest newsletters that in 2020 there is going to be more data, more than four hundred zettabytes. It's a huge amount of data and you will need the right platform to process it. More than people, we will need a platform that can process that amount of data in less than a millisecond. So we are looking for a high-speed storage enterprise, such as VSP.
If you compare to other solutions, Hitachi is more complex, but the platform is improving and it's not as difficult as it used to be.
We are facing new technologies such as Container by Google. It's the new way of Application Virtualization. I think that Hitachi and other companies should follow these technologies for integration with new technologies such as container base and their products. I think that cloud integration is important with vVol technologies from VMware.
There will be many challenges, but we need more integration between F Storage and new technology for Cloud, vVol, and Container.
I would like the interface to be simplified more than it is. The interface can be improved with new technologies such as HTML5, which is being used by some storage vendors.
Hitachi interface management is not as easy as the EMC Unity series. It's better to use HTML5 for the management systems.
IBM FlashSystem: Integration
They should reduce the cost of the solution and offer smaller storage sizes to target small to medium-sized businesses.
The solution is not easy to implement. It takes a lot of time to study the product and it's a little complicated in general.
The solution should offer integration with the cloud on the next upgrade. It might already be there but we have not integrated that, or gone for that upgrade. It would mean we could keep a copy of our data in the secured cloud, whether it's Amazon or Azure.
NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays: Integration
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any improvements other than perhaps better integration with some of our Cisco products.
In terms of which features I've found most valuable, this includes rapid deployment, easy integration management and cloning of areas - their cloning tools.
Also, the deployment is very quick and very simple.
All-Flash is made by Solid State Disk, it's not like HDD or spinning disk.
The price is important, and we would like to have it less expensive.
Better integration with other brands is important so we would like to see it easier to integrate.
Dell EMC Unity XT: Integration
- New HTML5 GUI: It's really fast and works well on your favorite browsers.
- Data reduction: We haven't seen the actual benefits, but with this feature, we are expecting to gain maximum efficiency.
- CloudIQ integration: This provides really useful data and analysis.
The initial setup has straightforward and complex pieces, such as, the integration.
As the solution continues to grow and gain more traction, things will come up that will just continue to deepen the integration between VMware, vCenter, and all those other components. Anything in the divisibility there and additional tools is always great.
This product needs to have better integration with enterprise backup solutions and archiving devices. Also, it would be improved with better flexibility for replicating with third-party SAN storage products. There are some SAN solutions that help customers to manage their data centers easier than the past.
Huawei OceanStor: Integration
There are some small things in the solution that can be improved. Supporting software is one of them and the integration with mainstream solution technologies could be better. They are small issues and generally the technology functions well. It's not an issue caused by the vendor but rather due to external circumstances and the cessation of cooperation between Chinese and US companies.
Dell EMC SC Series: Integration
The solution could use more integration with popular backup systems. Dell storage solutions are not very integrated. There are no dedicated models for, for example, Veeam backup or Redhouse backup, etc.
The lower model, the 3000, should have duplication. It doesn't right now. It's only from 5000 that this is offered, but it depends on the performance. It could be they don't offer it on lower models because the duplication is too much of a burden to the performance.
The interface could be improved. It should have an application point of view.
In the next release, I would for them to improve their application feature.
I would also like to see some cloud integration.
Pure Storage FlashBlade: Integration
They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution.
I would like to see better integration.
We used a reseller for the deployment called Trace 3. The consulting and integration of the whole solution was done by them and then turned over to my team. There was an issue that we didn't know how that was happening. It was more of an application team problem that they didn't come to us before starting all of that.
They are doing very well with the product.
We have integrated the solution with VMware. The integration process was user-friendly.
We use SolarWinds to evaluate our performance metrics.
We have integrated it with VMware. The integration process is pretty good. Especially with VMware, it helps with the capacity of it.
I would rate it as a nine (out of ten). Altogether, it is a pretty good system. Everything is well setup: The management, interface, and everything else are all pretty good.
This solution is deployed in our on-premises lab.
We are running VMware on Pure for improved performance. We have seen an increase in performance. We are using the VMware integrations developed by Pure to some extent, but I do not have specific details.
We use a hybrid deployment model. Most of the new data backups to the private cloud and then we can push it off to the public cloud for archiving. The cloud provider we're most likely to use is AWS.
Our customers also run VMware on Pure. I'd say in general, the solution helps IT departments. It allows consolidation in virtualization.
The main drivers around VMware on Pure for our customers are the speed, ease of use, and the Evergreen model for their licensing or support.
The joint solution, VMware on Pure, makes it easier for them to consolidate. They have smaller footprints out of their racks because it's all slashed, so they do not have a bunch of spinning drives. It's faster. It's easier for them to use. They don't have to buy their terabytes any more. They like the evergreen model because of the support.
Any integration to the vCenter helps in our deployment of VMs. You don't have to go out to the Pure interface and do anything you can do inside the vCenter.
My advice to others thinking about implementing the solution would be to look at them long and hard before you make a decision because they're definitely worth looking at.
I would rate FlashBlade an eight out of ten.
I think the most valuable part of the solution would be the seamless integration. The fact that they all use the same platform for connectivity, regardless of the physical position of the place. From the customer's perspective, this is the easiest product that I've tested, it's seamless.